What makes it an imperative?
An imperative is a command of reason that relates an action to its rational end. It may be both subjective or objective.
A subjective end, hence a subjective imperative, is merely a means to a higher end. An objective end, hence a categorical imperative, no longer acrues to a higher end but itself.
I see your point but - can't any premise be taken to a ridiculous extreme? For example preserving human life at all costs? I'm thinking of the sorts of choices doctors in emergency triage situations have to make all the time or keeping people who are braindead on life support.
A logical premise cannot give rise to an illogical conclusion - except through defective reasoning. We know a fallacious premise when the application of sound reasoning leads to a fallacious conclusion.
Example. Naive set theory results in the barber's or russell's paradox. Hence, naive set theory is a fallacy and must be replaced by the more formalized axiomatic set theory.
There are very compeling reasons to be skeptical about 'brain-dead' states. My wife was in a comma for almost a month. Prognosis indicated massive brain damage. She awoke one morning, as if she was merely asleep a fortnight. Aside from partial memory loss, she is fine, with occassional (annual to bi-annual) siezures. She even remembers her dream of a fenced-in garden in full bloom and an unidentified presence nearby. Oh, and she felt so tired in the dream, prompting her to look for an entrance to the garden to rest.
Interesting that someone would even think to apply mathmatics to ethics...I would agree, it does sound like nonsense.
You need to read it to begin to understand the extent of his nonsense. That is utilitarianism at its absurd worst.
Yes perhaps - but if you could only choose to save some, which should you save and using what criteria?
The answer is there, in the conditions you have set for this particular situation. One cannot be held to conform to a categorical imperative when he is powerless to do so. Some will inevitably die, some, with another's help will live. And it is enough for the medical practitioner to do his best under such circumstances - save, alleviate the suffering, hope, whatever it takes to uphold human life and dignity.
But isn't that then assigning relative values to it?
No. It is assigning the moral worth of an action - not assigning relative worth to human life.
Both the baby and the fetus are equally helpless to escape the situation unaided - how do you then make your choice?
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. And even in omission, there is a difference between a conscious choice to do nothing and being powerless to do something.
Under all these circumstances, one is given the rational faculty to discern and act accordingly.
I agree that eating is necessary for human survival. I agree that eating meat is as well in many cultures.
But if we are a moral and ethical species - then do we not have a moral obligation to the other species who's freedom we have curtailed?
Correct. As long as such an obligation does not supersede our obligations to ourselves and our fellow man.
Another poster said something along the lines of this: if we have the ability to affect the happiness or suffering of another animal, then we have an ethical obligation to that animal. (I'm not quoting this right - I can't remember it exactly).
Happiness and misery, as transient or ephemeral emotional states, are not themselves indicative of a good, no? We are obliged to conform to a good, and not to a calculation of pleasure and pain. And this simple assertion results in the concept of duty.
I disagree - though in practice that is the case. Ghandi said that the true test of a civilization's ethics was in how it treats it's animals and I think it is a sense of larger ethics (rather than just our own species) which seperates us from the rest of animals.
There is no contradiction.
Caring for the environment, that is, conforming to its natural balance as closely as possible, is in the best interest of everyone, including ourselves.
Well...what makes humans not animals? What makes them different?
The ability to discern good as the end of his actions.
Ahh come on - don't tell me if you had a choice between rescuing Adolph Hitler or your dog you'd wouldn't choose your dog? (on second thought don't answer)
Nothing would give me more pleasure than for hitler to have been pronounced guilty under the operation of law, and face the punishment provided for by that law.
He needed to be captured alive for that to happen, didn't he?
How can you tell whether or not another species is rational?
That is a very difficult question. You are talking of the nature of an existence as a whole. It is impossible to define to an arbitrary degree of exactness - since such a nature would necessarily include the concept of inherent potential.
It's biologically the same - but is biology all that matters? Or is the fact that it is a life that is important?
On the contrary, we are not biologically the same. Some would have a superior 'biology' than others. Sameness can only be valid in view of a particular existence or being.
Why?
If you remove an animals means to survive on it's own in it's natural environment (through domestication) don't you have a moral obligation to it - an ethical responsibility for it's wellbeing?
As I said, the ethical responsibility exist in so fas as it pertains to our survival. And by survival, not merely a biological existence, but human existence as well. This includes the conditions of human dignity.
If you are not hungry and not in danger, then what is the value of another animals life?
Do you mean "No" - we do not have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival? In otherwords - not just human life?
Include the conditions of human dignity. Having made the rational calculations, and finding no reason to kill an animal to uphold these conditions, then one shouldn't kill the animal.
Can you give me some examples of categorical imperatives then? Surely - the sacredness of all life would fall in that?
I can't find my book on kantian ethics so I would have to make do with something I googled:
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kantsgrounding/summary.html
Since specific interests, circumstances, and consequences cannot be considered, the moral "law" must be a general formula that is applicable in all situations. Rather than commanding specific actions, it must express the principle that actions should be undertaken with pure motives, without consideration of consequences, and out of pure reverence for the law. The formula that meets these criteria is the following:
we should act in such a way that we could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of our action to become a universal law. People have a decent intuitive sense for this law. Still, it is helpful for philosophy to state the law clearly so that people can keep it in mind.
It is nearly impossible to find examples of pure moral actions. Nearly every action we observe can be attributed to some interest or motivation other than pure morality. Yet this should not discourage us, for moral principles come from reason, not from experience. Indeed, moral principles could not come from experience, for all experiences depend on particular circumstances, whereas moral principles must have absolute validity, independent of all circumstances.
Because it applies in all circumstances, reason's fundamental moral principle may be called the "categorical imperative." The categorical imperative may be expressed according to the same formula as the moral law:
act only in such a way that you could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law. When people violate the categorical imperative, they apply a different standard to their own behavior than they would want applied to everyone else in the form of a universal law. This is a contradiction that violates principles of reason.
The categorical imperative may also be formulated as a requirement that we must not treat other rational beings as mere means to our own purposes. Rational beings have the capacity to pursue predetermined objectives ("ends") by means of their will, yet in pursuing their goals they never think of themselves as mere means to another purpose; they are themselves the purpose of their actions- -they are "ends in themselves. If we treat other rational beings as mere means, we contradict the fact that all rational beings are ends in themselves. In this case, our principles could not be universal laws, and we would violate the categorical imperative.
Though we will, and do - disagree on many things, I respect that a great deal
I find your opinions quite critical too.
